On Tuesday 13 November 2001 09:39 am, Cliff Woolley wrote: > On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > > I should clarify that just destroying the subrequest should be > > perfectly safe. Have we tried that yet. In the past, we would have > > had a problem with data surviving the death of the request, but all > > buckets should have cleanups now, so that shouldn't be an issue. > > Hang on... you do have to explicitly setaside all the buckets you want to > keep before destroying the subrequest and tell it which pool you want them > setaside into. Buckets don't have cleanups (well, pool buckets do, but > none of the others do), they have setaside functions.
We will have done that already. This may get complex, but follow my logic, and point out anything I missed. We are talking about destroying the sub request. By the time this is done, we have already passed all of the data from the sub-requests filter stack to the original requests. Either all of the data was written to the network, or it was set-aside. If it was written to the network, we can ignore it. If it was set aside, then it was done so in the original request, so we passed r->pool or c->pool to the setaside function. I wasn't clear in my original message, but the result should be the same. Ryan ______________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------
